War & Peace

The vision of a world without nuclear weapons has not only inspired a widespread and important social movement in past decades,[1] but continues to do so today. Nuclear disarmament is currently a central demand of the world peace movement—a complex network of organizations drawn together on the international and national levels, as well as on the basis of constituency. In addition, nuclear abolition garners the support of many other civil society groups, such as religious bodies, labour unions, environmental groups and political parties. Furthermore, much of the public also backs the development of a nuclear-weapon free world. This article will examine today’s activist campaign against nuclear weapons, as well as public opinion. It also will explore some of the obstacles faced by disarmament activists and discuss how the efficacy of their disarmament campaign might be improved.

From our friends, the tireless walkers of Footprints for Peace, an invitation to join them. In person, in solidarity, in spirit, and however else you feel inspired.

From Footprints for Peace: A call to walk for a nuclear-free future.

*********************************

Greetings and I hope that you have had a great start to the year and that you feel renewed for a very active and exciting 2011.

As you may be aware we have launched a five year campaign to raise awareness of the nuclear industry and we would love you to be involved at whatever capacity you feel able to.

The first stage of this campaign is a walk from Wiluna, Western Australia to Perth from August 22nd, 2011 to October 30th, 2011. This walk will be aimed at connecting with and supporting Aboriginal people who are opposing the new proposed uranium mines in Western Australia.

We invite you to become involved in this and there are many ways that you can actively participate in this project.

FIRST: We would like to invite you to come to Western Australia and walk with us. For a day, a week or for the entire 10 weeks.

FOURTH: We would like to invite you to make a financial contribution to this project. Your gift will help us bring Indigenous peoples together from Australia and the United States to share their own personal experiences with the nuclear industry and make global alliances. Your gift will also help to facilitate our ability to expand on our outreach to other organizations and help build the global grassroots movement to stand in solidarity with Indigenous peoples and communities who are actively opposing the nuclear industry.

Lynn Eden looked at the effect of only ONE bomb in this chilling examination of an often ignored consequence of nuclear warfare- the firestorm. Military experts have said the likelihood of only a single bomb being dropped would be low to non-existent. Multiple bombs would make this scenario even more devastating.

City on Fire

by Lynn Eden

By ignoring the fire damage that would result from a nuclear attack and taking into account blast damage alone, U.S. war planners were able to demand a far larger nuclear arsenal than necessary.

Caldicott discusses, in turn, what she sees as the three greatest threats to life on earth--global warming, nuclear war, and nuclear power--and urges the audience to take concrete actions against each. She even suggests a few specific actions.

Whitehall documents written in 1970s and marked 'personal and top secret' show logic of British Cold War deterrent

The British government opted for the Tridentnuclear weapons system because it estimated it could kill up to 10 million Russians and inflict "unacceptable damage" on the former Soviet Union, according to secret Whitehall documents written in the 1970s.

The macabre calculations that underpinned the decision in 1980 to replace Polaris nuclear missiles with Trident have been revealed by a Ministry of Defence memo, marked "personal and top secret". In a nuclear war, Britain would have had to be prepared "to finish what we start", it said.

Other MoD documents set out in chilling detail exactly how an attack on Moscow and St Petersburg could cause enough death and destruction "to bring about the breakdown of the city as a functioning community".

On this day, a message from the Dalai Lama. He needs no introduction, and his words speak for themselves. His message must be heard and understood by all, individually, in order that we truly become one people, working together compassionately in these troubled times.

When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.

It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.

We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.

Mr. President, as we end our debate on the New START Treaty, I believe we can say the Senate has done its duty, and done it with diligence, serious purpose, and honor. And I am confident that our nation’s security—and that of the world—will be enhanced by ratifying this treaty.

We began providing our advice on this treaty a year and a half ago, when negotiations between the United States and Russia first began. Over the subsequent months we listened and questioned and pushed as the administration’s negotiators shaped this agreement. And once it was submitted for our review in May, we scrutinized it carefully through hearings and briefings and hundreds of questions. Three different committees reviewed this treaty, including of course the Foreign Relations Committee, which ultimately drafted the resolution of advice and consent that we have been considering. That resolution was the product of a bipartisan effort, and I am pleased to say that the resolution we are voting on now is the product of further bipartisanship, with amendments from our Republican colleagues that we accepted last night and this morning.

When we began this debate eight days ago, I quoted Chris Dodd’s farewell address, in which he reminded us that the Founding Fathers had designed the Senate with these moments in mind. I think over the past week we have lived up to our moment. Senators have had the opportunity to speak and debate. The fact is, we have considered this treaty—a less complicated or far-reaching treaty than START I—for longer than we considered START I and START II combined. But this time gave us the opportunity to explore the nuclear challenge in great depth in a Senate that has not considered arms control for some time. We have discussed the requirements of nuclear deterrence, the need for missile defenses, the importance of our nuclear weapons complex, the need to negotiate on tactical nuclear weapons, and the centrality of verification to arms control.

I know that we have not always agreed on all of these issues, but we have considered them with the gravity and the seriousness that the subject requires. In the end, I hope that most of us have come to agree that we should provide our consent to this critical treaty.

Bruce Gagnon l Organizing Notes
DECEMBER 22, 2010
INTERVIEW WITH HELEN CALDICOTT
It's snowing again. A heavier snow this time and likely will be a big shoveling day. We've not had much real intense cold so far though, it is warm one day with ...

Shelter in place for how long exactly? And who will be there to provide accurate information? Notice that the example of people outside L.A. carefully avoids mentioning people in L.A.

One of the unspoken problems of the aftermath of a nuclear bombing is the same as in a nuclear accident- it's not that evacuation plans don't exist, it's that they are not implementable. There is no realistic expectation of avoiding massive casualties in the event of a nuclear attack, or a nuclear meltdown. It is irresponsible, as we struggle to get the Republican side of the government to accept the necessary goal of nuclear disarmament, to suggest that staying inside your home or an office building will really protect you in the long run.

Instead of handing out misleading panaceas to reassure americans that nuclear attacks are survivable, we should put our focus on preventing them by working towards peaceful solutions to the problems facing us.